1967: The Jewish Mecca

From the very first time I came to Israel on holiday, have I stuffed letters to G-d in the crevices of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. These days, you don't even have to be physically present at the Wall to have your supplications inserted into the cracks between the stones - faxed messages can be printed out and taken to the Wall on your behalf, or your message transcribed by phone and carried there by hand. A webcam transmits live images of the Wall round the clock via the internet - testament to the sheer magnitude and importance of the structure to world Jewry, and proof of one incontrovertibly positive outcome of the Six-day War.

Leaving politics aside - which, granted, is near impossible to do in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict - the capture of the Old City in the war in 1967 was of immense religious and spiritual significance to the Jewish people. From the diehard secular to the ultra-orthodox, there is no place on earth that embodies Judaism like the Wailing Wall.

In religious terms, it is by no means the holiest Jewish site in the world. That tribute belongs to a stone a few hundred metres away that lies under the al-Aqsa mosque, and which was relinquished to Muslim control as part of the post-1967 settlement. For all its military might and prowess at the time, one notable part of Israel's conquest of the Old City was its refusal to expropriate the Temple Mount site, preferring instead to cede control to the Waqf religious authority.

This is in stark contrast to conquering armies the world over, who have - since time immemorial - waylaid the holy sites and structures of their defeated enemies and erected their own altars in their place. Even Judaism authorised such destruction in Bible times - when the land of Canaan was captured, the troops were commanded to "Destroy their altars, and smash their stones". This assertion of power has taken place ever since, all the way to the present day (witness the Taliban's destruction of the ancient Buddhas when they wrested control of Afghanistan).

However, the treatment meted out to the Wailing Wall - an outer wall of the long-destroyed Jewish Temple - in the years preceding its capture by Israel was nothing short of scandalous. Recognising the importance of the structure to the Jews, various groups tried to neutralise its power and destroy its potency for the Jewish people.

The nearby Dung Gate in the Old City walls is so called because it is where refuse and waste was traditionally piled up, in an effort to desecrate the holy site. Houses were built right up to the edge of the Wall itself, and it was impossible for a time for Jews to pray at the site.

Thus, when the Wall was recaptured in 1967, it is no wonder that the rabbis of the time proclaimed it a near-miracle, and an event of such importance in the Jewish people's history. For the part of those Israelis who were less religious, but no less proud of their victory, the conquest of the Old City necessitated a change in name for the Wailing Wall.

The Wall had been so named because it represented the tears that the Jews shed through their dark years in exile and now - having returned home - they were no longer out in the spiritual wilderness. Hence the decision was taken to rebrand the Wall as merely the Western Wall, recognising its position in the former Temple structure, and doing away with the negative connotations of its former name.

All of this, when taken in the context of the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War, should indicate why any final settlement is bound to stall if it includes the provision of handing back the Old City. For someone like me - a Zionist raised in a religious home, albeit a left-wing one - the issue is far too complicated for a black-and-white answer.

On the one hand, I would have no problem with Israel withdrawing from the West Bank in general, even though sites of such historic and religious importance such as Hebron and Jericho would be handed over. I believe that it must be in the state's interest, and thus the interest of Jews worldwide, to trade land for peace (assuming it does mean peace), however attached we are to certain parts of it.

However, I cannot apply the same standards to the Western Wall. It is akin to asking the Muslims to hand over al-Aqsa - there's just no way they would, and who can blame them? Thus, when combined with the location of the Western Wall - on the edge of Jewish West Jerusalem, and thus not difficult to annex to a final-status state - it seems justifiable to insist on its retention.

But this double standard on my part doesn't stand up to scrutiny, I am the first to admit. If I wouldn't cede control of the Wall to the other side, then how can I tell a Hebron settler that he must give up his claim to the Cave of Machpela?

All that I can think is that there are some sites which cause too much bloodshed, too much heartache, and too many wasted years of peace to justify keeping hold of. The Western Wall is not one of them - it is, to all intents and purposes, the Jewish Mecca. It is, and always will remain, the focal point of world Jewry, and thus its recapture in 1967 must be the last time we are ever tasked with winning it back.